1951-11-28

Mr. P. T. Hellyer (Davenport):: I rise on a matter of personal privilege. I would like to take this opportunity, on my own behalf and on behalf of hon. members on all sides of the house, to congratulate my successor as the youngest member of this house on the occasion of the birth of a daughter to Mrs. Meeker at Toronto yesterday.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Adamson be substituted for that of Mr. Pearkes on the special committee on defence expenditures; and
That the name of Mr. Blair be substituted for that of Mr. Churchill on the joint special committee on combines legislation; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 28, to amend an act to amend the Canada-United States of America Tax Convention Act, 1943, and the Canada-United States of America Tax Convention Act, 1944.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


James Joseph McCann: The purpose of this bill is to amend the act passed by parliament in 1950 amending the Canada-United States of America tax convention.
The amendment is to add the protocol dealing with the exchange of ratifications signed at Washington on November 21, 1951. The protocol is set out as a schedule to this bill and is self-explanatory.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	Is the Department of National Defence providing a grant towards the construction of the road to be built at the C.J.A.T.C., Rivers, Manitoba?
2.	If so, how much is the grant?
3.	What percentage of the total cost of road construction does this amount represent?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$50,000.
3.	43 per cent.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Green:: 1.	Has the Department of Defence Production called for tenders for serving forks within the last two months?
2.	If so, for what total number of such forks?
3.	To what persons and centres were such forks to be consigned, and in what numbers respectively?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	Yes.
2.	40,000.
3.
Consignee-Centre-Number of Forks
Commandant, No. 26 central ordnance depot, subdepot, 6565 Notre Dame St. East, Montreal, P.Q., 20,000.
Commanding officer, No. 15 regional ordnance depot, Debert, Nova Scotia, 6,300.
Commanding officer, No. 16 regional ordnance depot, Regina, Saskatchewan, 7,400.
Commanding officer, No. 17 regional ordnance depot, Boundary Bay, British Columbia, 6,300.



GOVERNMENT SAVINGS BONDS


Mr. Maclnnis:: What amount of government savings bonds, series one to five, were purchased since date of issue in
each case?


Mr. Sinclair:: Series 1,	issued	in	1946	
$535,285,800Series 2,	issued	in	1947	
287,742,850Series 3,	issued	in	1948	
260,491,150Series 4,	issued	in	1949	
320,231,500Series 5,	issued	in	1950	
285,580,000
Questions



TRANSFER OF LOW GRADES TO 1951-52 POOL

Mr. Diefenbaker:: At what price per bushel was the damp or tough wheat of the 1950-51 pool transferred* to the 1951-52 pool by the wheat board?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Price
Per Bushel
Tough No.	3	northern	$1,853Tough No.	4	northern	
1.793Tough No.	5	wheat	
1.653Tough No.	6	wheat	
1.533Tough feed wheat	'. 1.473Tough No.	1	soft white spring .... 1.89.!Tough No.	3	soft white spring .... 1.821-Tough No.	2	Canada western	garnet	. 1.853Tough No.	3	Canada western	garnet	. 1.813Tough No.	2	Alberta winter	
1.873Tough No.	3	Alberta winter	
1.823Tough No.	2	Canada western	amberdurum	
1.873
Tough No. 3 Canada western amber
durum	 1.85f
Tough No. 4 Canada western amber
durum	 1.79f
Tough No. 5 Canada western amber
durum	 1.65f
Tough No. 6 Canada western amber
durum	 1.563-
Tough No. 1 Canada western mixed
grain	 1.47f
Tough No. 4 mixed wheat	 1.543
Tough No. 5 mixed wheat	 1.643
Tough No. 6 mixed wheat	 1.573
Tough and heating No. 3 northern .. 1.74f
Tough No. 6 durum heating	 1.513
Tough rejected No. 3 northern	 1.76f
Tough rejected No. 4 northern	 1.723
Tough rejected No. 5 wheat	 1.603
Tough rejected No. 6 wheat	 1.483
Tough rejected feed wheat	 1.42|
Tough rejected No. 3 durum	 1.763
Tough rejected No. 4 durum	 1.723
Tough rejected No. 5 durum	 1.603
Tough rejected No. 5 mixed wheat .. 1.59f Tough rejected No. 6 mixed wheat .. 1.523 Tough rejected No. 3 mixed wheat
fireburnt	 1.133
Tough rejected No. 1 northern mixed
heated	 1.793
Tough rejected No. 2 northern mixed
heated	 1.753
Tough rejected No. 3 northern mixed
heated	 1.73|
Tough rejected No. 5 durum mixed
heated	 1.573
Tough rejected No. 1 mixed grain
mixed heated	 1.393
Tough rejected No. 4 mixed wheat mixed heated	 1.463

Tough rejected No. 5 mixed wheat
mixed heated	 1.56f
Tough rejected No. 1 mixed grain
mixed heated and heating	 1.36f
Tough rejected No. 3 durum sour ... 1.713 Tough rejected No. 2 northern mixed
rotten kernels	 1.71f
Tough rejected No. 5 wheat mixed
rotten kernels	 1.533
Tough rejected No. 3 northern
tartarian buckwheat	 1.733
Tough rejected No. 4 northern
sprouted	 1.733
Tough smutty No. 2	northern	
1.763Tough smutty No. 3	northern	
1.743Tough smutty No. 4 northern	
1.703Tough smutty No. 5	wheat	
1.583Tough smutty feed	
1.40|
Tough smutty No. 1 Alberta red
winter	 1.80f
Tough smutty No. 2	durum	
1.763Tough smutty No. 3	durum	
1.743Tough smutty No. 4	durum	
1.703
Tough smutty rejected No. 6 wheat . 1.423 Tough smutty rejected No. 2 durum . 1.723 Tough smutty rejected No. 4 northern
mixed heated	 1.633
Tough smutty rejected No. 3 northern
mixed heated and	heating	 1.643
Tough smutty rejected No. 5 wheat
rotten kernels	 1.493
Damp No. 2 northern	 1.723
Damp No. 3 northern	 1.703
Damp No. 4 northern	 1.643
Damp No. 5 wheat	 1.523
Damp No. 6 wheat	 1.423
Damp feed	 1.363
Damp No. 3 garnet	 1.663
Damp No. 3 durum	 1.703
Damp No. 4 durum	 1.643
Damp No. 5 durum	 1.523
Damp No. 6 durum ..,	 1.453
Damp No. 1 mixed grain	 1.36|
Damp No. 1 mixed wheat	 1.533
Damp rejected No. 3 northern	 1.623
Damp rejected No. 4 northern	 1.583
Damp rejected No. 5 wheat	 1.463
Damp rejected No. 6 wheat	 1.36|
Damp rejected No. 4 durum	 1.583
Damp rejected No. 3 northern mixed
heated	 1.593
Damp rejected No. 4 northern mixed
heated	 1.55|
Damp rejected No. 5 wheat mixed
heated	 1.433
Damp rejected No. 6 wheat mixed
heated	 1.333
Damp rejected feed	mixed	heated .. 1.273
Damp rejected No. 3 durum mixed
heated	 1.593
Damp rejected No. 4 durum mixed
heated	 1.553
Damp smutty No.	3	northern	 1.603

Price
Per Bushel
Damp smutty No. 4 northern	 1.56J
Damp smutty No. 5 wheat	 1.44f
Damp smutty No. 5 durum	 1.44|
Damp sample red spring mixed
heated	 1.42|
Damp sample durum mixed heated . 1.42f Damp sample red spring mixed
heated and heating	 1.40|
Damp sample red spring rotten
kernels mixed heated	 1.41J
Tough sample garnet mixed heated . 1.49J Tough sample red spring rotten
kernels	1.49 J
Tough sample durum broken wheat . 1.58f



ST. JOHN AMBULANCE    ALLOCATION OF FUNDS IN CIVIL DEFENCE APPROPRIATIONS

Mr. Hees:: 1.	How much money has been allocated for St. John Ambulance training in Canadian civil defence appropriations?
2.	What proportion of such will be allotted to the local defence of the Toronto and York district?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	Authority has been given for an expenditure of not more than $99,000 for the training of civil defence workers in basic and advanced first aid through the facilities of the St. John Ambulance Association.
2.	The amount to be allocated to individual target areas from the total amount allotted to each province is the responsibility of the province concerned.



NOVA SCOTIA-WAGES PAID BY MINE OPERATORS

Mr. Balcom:: Has the labour department appointed anyone to follow the inquiry set up by the province of Nova Scotia to study matters pertaining to wages as paid by independent mine operators?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: The Department of Labour has not appointed an officer to "follow the inquiry" which is being conducted by the province of Nova Scotia into the wage rates and other matters affecting the operations of the independent coal mine operators in the province, but the department's officers in Nova Scotia, as a matter of routine, will be closely in touch with the inquiry.



GOLDEN SYRUP


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	Was any golden syrup imported since January 1, 1951, into Canada from the Irish Sugar Company, Mallow, county Cork, Eire?
2.	If so (a) what quantity; (b) at what price; <c) what are the dates of customs entry?
3.	Was entry made through the port of Halifax?
Questions


George James McIlraith: 1, 2 and 3. Golden syrup not classified for statistical purposes. No information available in the dominion bureau of statistics.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	How many delegates will accompany the Minister of Agriculture when he attends the FAO meeting at Rome?
2.	What are the names of delegates and the departments with which they are connected?
3.	Will there be a representative from the fisheries department?
4.	If not. for what reason?



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Since June, 1950, what was the dollar value of
contracts placed with each of the following companies:	(a) Ford Motor Company; (b) General
Motors; (c) Chrysler Motor Corporation; (d) Studebaker of Canada?
2.	What is the value of the equipment that has been actually turned over to the defence forces, from each company?



HEALTH GRANTS FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What were the terms of each application for a grant for research purposes, made by the provinces under the federal health grants program since January 1, 1950, in those cases where such applications were refused, as specified in sessional paper No. 86-A of November 22, 1951?
2.	What was the reason for the refusal in each such case?



GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What groups of employees working for agencies of the federal government, but not civil servants, are on the five-day week?
2.	How many employees are involved in connection with each such agency?
3.	How many weeks per year, in 1949, 1950 and 1951, have civil servants been on a five-day week?
4.	Have representations been received by the government, since January 1, 1950, for the five-day week for civil servants the year round? If so, from whom?
5.	What consideration has been given to such representations?
6.	What progress is being made by the government in getting ready for a five-day week for all civil servants and all government employees?



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Howe) or his parliamentary assistant. Is the report correct that the government has ordered two jet-powered Comet airliners from the de Havilland company of England? If so, why was this aircraft preferred over the Avro jetliner developed by A. V. Roe Canada Limited with substantial government assistance? Have any orders been received for this Avro jetliner?


George James McIlraith: In the absence of the minister may I say that notice of the question has just come to my attention. I would prefer to let the question stand as notice, and give an answer later.
Mr. Cold well: Very well.



ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Has he received a report from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) of the meeting he held in Regina with provincial government representatives and farm leaders on methods of assistance to western farmers? Is the Prime Minister in a position to announce financial aid to farmers on unthreshed grain as forecast by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on November 15?


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The answer to both questions is no.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, t should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General, of which I have given notice. What are the rates for parcel post from Canada to our forces in Korea and in Europe, and what is the maximum weight of each parcel that can be sent? Is the government giving consideration to reducing these rates and increasing the weight of parcels which can be sent?


Hon. Edouard Rinfret (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. Whereas the civilian rates for parcel post from Canada to Korea range from 40 cents for one pound to $2.10 for ten pounds, the rate for the services is 15 cents a pound. This was introduced in October, 1950. About three weeks or a month ago we extended the same privilege at the same rate
[Mr. Coldwell.l

to our forces in Europe. The maximum weight of each parcel is ten pounds.
The answer to the second question is no.
Then, if I may be allowed, I am proud to be able to announce a special forces letter to be introduced on December 1, 1951, available for air communication to and from forces overseas, regardless of location. They are similar in form to our Canada air letter, but buff in colour. They are at present being distributed to all post offices, and will be supplied free to mailers upon request. The postal rate will be 5 cents as compared with 15 cents at the present time for one-quarter ounce to Europe, and 15 cents for the Canada air letter to Europe.



MING SUNG INDUSTRIAL COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the
answer given in sessional paper 167-A, which was a reply to certain questions of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) and a copy of which I have just received,
I wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister, of which previous notice has not been given, but in regard to which he will have the facts available, without notice.
Has the government rescinded the order in council permitting certain ships operated by the Ming Sung Industrial Company Limited to fly the Canadian flag and have the privileges which this affords?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister):	Mr. Speaker, the answer at this
time is no. The ships have not returned to Hong Kong, and it is not known by us just where they are at this time. Negotiation is going on with the representatives of the Ming Sung Company of Canada Limited. They have been informed that those ships cannot be allowed to carry on under Canadian registry, and as the banks have the mortgages registered against them the negotiations look to the transfer of register where there could also be transfer of registry of these mortgages. I have not within the last few days had any report as to the progress that has been made, but I know that these negotiations are on. Meantime representatives of the Ming Sung Company of Canada Limited have been informed that we cannot allow the ships to continue to operate under the Canadian flag.


George Alexander Drew: I suggest to the Prime Minister that the information he has given and the fact that the Canadian government does not know where these ships are now is all

the more reason why permission to fly the flag should be cancelled immediately, and this shameful question brought to an end.



INQUIRY AS TO PROHIBITION OF EXPORT OF CANADIAN FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. On January 31 of this year and November 15 of this year I addressed questions to the Minister of Finance in regard to prohibiting the export of funds to communist China. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance on November 16 gave an answer which was not very satisfactory. I am asking the Minister of Justice now whether, owing to the fact that Chinese in Peterborough have had demands made on them to the extent of $5,000 and $2,500 within the last two or three weeks, from relatives in China, he will look into the matter and see what can be done.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I would say in reply to the hon. member that we have already some time since looked into the matter. Since the blackmail in question takes place entirely within communist China, with which at the present time we have no diplomatic connections, it is difficult in this country to do anything about preventing blackmail in China.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Owing to the fact that wires
have been sent direct to these Chinese in Canada something should be done about it, something to check on it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member has indicated in his first question that these demands came direct to citizens in Canada from relatives in China, and not from people who are blackmailing them. Therefore it would be difficult, I suggest-and I think the hon. member would agree, upon reflection-to take any action within Canada which would prevent the commission of a crime in China.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know where amounts up
to $9,000 have been demanded. Is there not some way that this money can be stopped from going to communist China?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would be prepared to
accommodate the hon. member in that regard, but I think that is a question which should be directed to the Department of Finance.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then I direct it to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance.
Inquiries of the Ministry


James Sinclair: The answer that I would give today is exactly the same as the answer I gave at an earlier time. The only effective way to stop money going to China would be for the United States government and ourselves not only to stop all remittances to China but to have a complete postal censorship as well to stop bills being sent. Obviously that is impossible under present circumstances. There is another feature which has been raised by the Chinese in Vancouver who are suffering from these blackmail attempts. There are many families in China who are dependent upon the weekly or monthly remittances made by heads of families in Canada who have lived here for many years, and to cut off all remittances would cause great hardship to these families.


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Does he not think that the attitude of the House of Commons in connection with this particular Chinese question reminds him of the attitude of the Liberal party when the Ming Sung situation was first brought up?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The answer is "no".



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, November 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robert Cauchon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Quelch.
( Translation):
Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, in rising for the second time to take part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I wish to say a few words in favour of the amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) requesting an increase in the amount of war veterans allowances.
In the constituency of Beauce, which I represent, it is known that I am pacifist in the proper sense of the word, and that I am opposed to this war psychosis which sometimes seems to be artificially, even deliberately, brought about.
Nevertheless I have the greatest admiration and the deepest sympathy for those who generously offer their lives for their country which they believe to be threatened or attacked.

The Address-Mr. Poulin
At Remembrance day ceremonies held November 11 in the constituency of Beauce,
I had the opportunity of reaffirming in the presence of hundreds of local veterans the admiration I personally feel for them and the feelings of pride the people of the whole constituency have towards them.
Wreaths were then laid by county officers, and by each of the parishes, at the foot of a splendid monument erected to the glorious memory of the Beauce county men who laid down their lives in the two world wars.
The perfectly organized ceremony was most touching. Whoever has not heard of the Chaudiere regiment's exploits really knows very little about the heroic history of French-Canadian servicemen. However, colourful ceremonies such as these remind us that our departed heroes left behind widows and orphans who need our help.
They also remind us that among those who survived the great adventure are some who can no longer earn their livelihood under normal conditions. Well, it is the duty of the state to be generous towards them and to remember that glory is not sufficient to quell hunger and to protect from cold and hardship.
I am therefore very happy about the statement made in this house by the Minister of Veterans Affairs on November 16. According to his statement the basic rate of veterans pensions will now be increased from $94 to $125. This, in my humble opinion, is very acceptable.
In the case of the married pensioner, the allowance to his wife will be increased from $31 to $45, which again seems very good to me.
In the case of children, however, I must voice my disapproval because the increase is practically insignificant, being only $1. The amount is increased from $19 to $20 for the first child and the others seem to have been forgotten. It is about the same in the case of widows' children.
I am quite satisfied with the 33 odd per cent increase in the pension to widows of pensioners.
I feel it my duty, however, to tell the government they should have laid more emphasis on child welfare, through a more substantial allowance, one in keeping with the new pensions granted to the father or
mother. This would have enabled veterans and their families to live a more normal family life.
The minister will allow me, I presume, to call his attention to a matter which I consider very important. On the very day the minister announced the amendment to the war veterans Pension Act, the member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) asked if adopted children would benefit to the same extent as the others. The minister replied that he would gladly consider the matter. I am glad the minister did not answer immediately. If this question had been answered in the negative in such a Christian and civilized country as Canada, it would have been most unfortunate. I now urge the minister to study all the aspects of the problem before giving a definite answer.
The minister, whom I know as a man of sound ideas and for whom I have great respect, will surely not deny that the question of adoption is of primary importance in Canada and particularly in the province of Quebec. There is to this problem a moral as well as a social and in some respects even an economic aspect which our statesmen are in duty bound to scrutinize before coming to a decision.
As far as I am concerned I humbly and honestly believe that by all means adoption should be generally encouraged and favoured. One feels pity, and rightly so, for stateless aliens. How then can one remain indifferent to the undeserved misfortune befalling young children in this country who are without parents, without a family, without a home. Their past history does not matter. They are human beings like ourselves; they have a soul and a mind like other people; they are the work of a single and universal Creator; they are Canadians and we are in duty bound to treat them as such, fortunately, the acceptance of this duty provides, of itself, many consolations and deep happiness for those who are willing to fulfil it generously. There lies, for the government, an excellent opportunity of proving that they consider spiritual concepts as important as material concepts. I am therefore certain that the minister will meet no difficulty in convincing his colleagues in the cabinet that an allowance must be granted for adopted children, as it is for others.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few words about a subject which, to my mind, is equally

The Address-Mr. Poulin
very important. I refer to the pressures now being exerted by Canadian milk producers in order to have the tariffs raised on imports of vegetable oils used in the manufacture of margarine.
It will readily be admitted that margarine constitutes a threat to the security of the butter market in Canada and consequently to the whole dairy industry, of which it is the main item.
Last April I quoted certain figures which I do not intend to repeat but which seemed, at the time, to be fairly conclusive. I have received more than 500 cards from the farmers of Beauce constituency, asking the government to protect the dairy industry against the admittance into Canada of vegetable oils. It seems to me that our leaders should study this request. Customs duties are raised all around to protect all kinds of manufactured goods. Why, then, should farmers not be allowed to claim for themselves tariff protection for a product essential to their survival? The farmers are a basic element in this country. Let us not jeopardize the economic security of our people by neglecting to take the necessary means to protect an essential part of our production.
The federal authorities are now considering the complaint made by Canadian textile manufacturers, to the effect that the dumping in Canada of 140,000 pairs of cotton gloves manufactured in Czechoslovakia is threatening the Canadian manufacturers. They are quite right. In my opinion, the Canadian textile worker must be protected and I am all the more interested in this because the constituency of Beauce has both large and small textile mills. I therefore hope the government will be in a position to settle the problem to the greater advantage of the Canadian manufacturer, of course, but especially for the protection of our workers who, otherwise, would suffer from unemployment and distress.
But why, then, should the same thing not be done to protect the product most essential to eastern Canada's agriculture? It seems to me that to consider seriously the problem is to have already solved it in part. I am convinced that milk producers generally will not have appealed in vain to the generosity of the government and of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in particular.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss briefly a subject which is of great importance to the people of Quebec, I mean the report of the Massey commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences.
At the time of confederation Quebec had refused legislative union in order to be in a better position to keep its characteristics intact and to keep on shaping its future in accordance with such characteristics. Of capital importance among these were education and teaching, so much so that the fathers of confederation took the trouble to write them out in section 93 of the British North America Act, thus making sure that that particular point of the mutual pact could never be modified in the future without the mutual consent of the contracting parties. Who will dare state that Quebec is ready to change that? Who will dare claim that the province of Quebec is ready to surrender to federal authorities part of its exclusive rights in the field of education at any level?
The report of the Massey commission can change nothing in this condition because the commission is not and has never been authorized to speak on behalf of Quebec. The scholarly lucubrations of a member of that commission, though he be from Quebec, will change nothing in it.


Mr. Cote (Maiapedia-Malane):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Raoul Poulin: I would rather not be interrupted, if you please. Problems such as schooling or education, academic schooling or popular schooling are too important, too essential to a people's soul, to be solved by playing on words or quibbling. Academic culture reflects the intellectual life of a nation, and popular culture the abundance of this life. The one is inseparable from the other, they are complementary. One represents the trunk, the other the branches^ and the branches cannot be severed from the trunk without killing both. What standards will be set in determining which should be at the provincial level and which at the national level?
The Massey commission recommends assistance to the universities after agreement with the provinces. Why did it go into that problem after stating at first it was beyond its purview? And since they decided to study the problem after all, why did they not go the
1404

The Address-Mr. Poulin whole way and show that our universities are in a bad way because the central government draws too great a share of the people's taxes, leaving the provincial treasury practically empty? In this regard, I cannot help quoting an article written by Andre Laurendeau in Le Devoir of November 20 last.
I quote:
Having ascertained the financial difficulties of universities, the Massey commission did not wish to go further. On the contrary, it suggested that the central government do likewise, that is go beyond its jurisdiction and actually do away with the provinces and take over, with its billions, the field of strictly academic education.
The Montreal chamber of commerce had suggested that the commissioners remind the central government of its duty of enabling the provinces to act, by the return of a substantial part of their tax fields.
But the Massey commission carefully avoided this and thereby revealed its intentions.
It speeds up the wheel of centralism, introducing centralism into a field where one never dreamt it would dare intrude: in the field of education. It seeks to introduce it into a position until then strongly guarded.
The commission proposed, it is true, an agreement with the provinces. But why seek agreement in a field of exclusive jurisdiction? If there is really no other way of proceeding, -and I cannot believe it is so-let the state give unconditionally and refund to the provinces what it has taken from them.


Mr. Lesage:: The election fund!


Raoul Poulin: The remark of the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) is out of place. I am trying to stay above petty politics. In that connection, may I say that I have heard in this house speeches oozing with electoral anxiety. I am trying to rise above that and I shall not comment further on my hon. friend's remark.
Some may say that universities are willing to accept and even request federal aid which, sooner or later, in my humble opinion, will entail state supervision and control. My answer to that is that we forget the, old saying: "It is no use preaching to a hungry man." I might add that a hungry man has no eyes to see. Besides the universities though, a large number of individuals and groups in Quebec are not so hungry that they have not kept their eyes and ears open and are unwilling to accept this logic in reverse. I might quote a few, for instance the Rev. Father Richard Ares, S.J., who said this:
The Massey report is full of the generous intentions of its authors, but this generosity, after all, leads Canadians into temptation, by inviting them to admit into their own spheres of activity the state, and the federal state at that. There is a

danger here that they will no longer be masters in their own house and will be like those people who let into their tent the proverbial camel.
I am also referring, without mentioning their names, to many journalists who contribute to the magazine Relations, to the Liberal Winnipeg Free Press, not to mention the University of Montreal Alumni Association, the Student Federation of the University of Montreal, the Montreal branch of the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste, the Federation of Junior Chambers of Commerce of the province of Quebec, the District of Montreal chamber of commerce, Mr. Rene Chaloult, independent M.L.A. for Quebec county, as well as others, and, finally, the Catholic Farmers' Union of Quebec, whose opinion-


An hon. Member:: They haven't read the Massey report.


Raoul Poulin: -whose opinion, to my mind, is very important, since I have almost limitless faith in the common sense of our farmers.
We know what is going on today in the field of radio, which is controlled by a corporation of the federal government so dear to the heart of the members of the Massey commission. When the federal state has usurped the field of education, is it not to be feared that what is happening now in the C.B.C. will happen there and that we will be unable to make it stop?
I think that perhaps-and this will undoubtedly please the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet-we shall never have a central government better disposed about these matters than the one we have now. This statement, I hope, will also satisfy the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) who sees nothing but electoral concern in the views of those who express themselves freely on this admittedly debatable issue.


Jean Lesage: That is unfair.


Mr. Arsenault:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beauce should not ascribe such intentions to me. I do not ask him to withdraw his remarks but I wish to point out to him that it is not courteous to ascribe such intentions to one of his colleagues.


Raoul Poulin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I have misunderstood the meaning of the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonaventure. He was evidently speaking with much more warmth than today. However, I have read his speech in Hansard and I gathered from ?ertain portions of his speech that he accused

those who opposed the conclusions of the Massey report of having an eye to the electorate. If this interpretation is not in accordance with what he said, with great pleasure and great generosity towards the member who has interrupted, I withdraw what is false in my statement.


Bona Arsenault: Hear, hear.


Raoul Poulin: Only yesterday, in this house, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) gave us proof of his good will on a matter of this kind. Strangely enough, I do not hear any protest from the members opposite when I praise the government.


Bona Arsenault: Which government?


Raoul Poulin: The present government.


Bona Arsenault: Where?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Raoul Poulin: I wish to quote yesterday's Hansard. In reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who asked whether the government had given consideration to extending federal aid to education generally, the Prime Minister replied, and I quote from page 1355:
I do not know that any such representations have been received. While I have the responsibility as the head of the government I would have to ask my colleagues to join with me in refusing to consider such a request.
In spite of the question asked by the hon. member-and there was nothing shameful in asking it-I believe the Prime Minister and leader of the present government was fully justified in taking the position he has just taken. That is why I have no apprehension whatever as far as the present government is concerned. But the Prime Minister and the present government are not eternal.
A Conservative government which might one day replace it, and which I would also believe to be well-disposed, under its present leader would not be any more eternal.
And then? And later? In 25, 50 years, what ideas, what principles or sense of opportunity will guide those statesmen who will then be at the helm in our country? I am not in the least concerned whether they be red or blue or even colourless, but how can we be sure that these men will be as full of good intentions as the present leaders of our great parties?


An hon. Member:: Never!


Raoul Poulin: And should they not be well-disposed would they not be then provided with the most dangerous weapon ever? That 94699-904
The Address-Mr. Poulin is, to my mind, the very crux of the matter. We already know the past too well. Do we not have good reason to be worried about the future?
At the present time, even though the government is composed of well-disposed men, we see the officials of the C.B.C. allowing the airwaves to be used to warp altogether the education we wish to give to our children. What would it be if we had an ill-disposed government?
For instance, does Rev. Father Levesque, one of the commissioners, consider there is any appearance of common sense in letting a Chisholm, a Freud or a Cameron and others, with their materialistic and atheistic theories, use the facilities of the C.B.C. to indoctrinate the children of Canada and tell them the cause of our trouble lies in the fact that a distinction is made between the concept of good and the concept of evil? I speak subject to correction, but that is not what the good Father teaches. What means has he at his disposal to call a halt to such a scandal or to prevent its recurrence, if ever we succeed in bringing it to an end? What tactics does he suggest so that these nauseous outbursts will stop poisoning the air our children are breathing? Since he claims popular culture comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government, is he prepared, at least, to point out a few steps we could take to bring an end to such a state of affairs? Does he know where we should go in Ottawa, to meet a few bureaucrats or executives who might be in a position to understand the Quebec point of view?
Are we, in this respect, to be as successful as the member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) and the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) were, when they asked for a wider use of French in our armed forces?
Is it not realized that in all these matters that deal with the very soul of a people there are always persons or circumstances that might seriously embarrass a government, even the most favourably disposed?
I am thinking of British Columbia, where the provincial government refuses to grant a charter to a Catholic university. Such is their conception of human rights and respect for minorities-


Bona Arsenault: It is the provincial government which refuses that.


Raoul Poulin: -which certain public men talk about ad nauseam!
The time has come to remedy a situation already jeopardized. And those who, speaking authoritatively, would have us believe that

The Address-Mr. Poulin the central government has something to do with education and culture may well be responsible for encouraging that same government to deform and even to vitiate that which the provincial authority-the rights of which it has usurped-had been entrusted with, to keep, consolidate and perfect.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to state publicly that if I have mentioned here the name of Rev. Father Levesque, it was in his capacity as a member of a commission appointed by the government to deal-with a matter of public interest. As the representative of a county it is my right and even my duty, I believe, to concern myself with that matter because I represent here parents who after all have the first say in the matter of the education of their children. I wish to assure Rev. Father Levesque and everybody, including the hon. member for Bonaventure, that after having accomplished a duty which was painful to me, I still have for that distinguished member of the clergy and for all other members of the clergy the same profound respect and the very high consideration that I have always tried to show them much more by my deeds than by my words.
May I add a few more words in reply to an allegation which was made in this house on November 19 by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Masse) and which is found at page 1171 of Hansard:
When I see that for political reasons-
Such words evidently struck me.
-the words of that worthy representative are quoted and an attempt is made to contradict them and to make people believe that he no longer holds his former beliefs, I am dumbfounded.
Mr. Speaker, I shall answer that by declaring that no political reasons have prompted the few remarks I am making today.
I am fairly well acquainted with the member for Kamouraska. I esteem greatly that very fine gentleman. He is a university professor who honours his faculty.
I am sure that he did not mean to be unfair and that his words went beyond his thoughts. Otherwise I would be compelled to quote good old Boileau:
Can so much venom enter into the soul of such a sanctimonious man?
Mr. Speaker, I realize that, in endeavouring to be brief on this matter of the Massey commission! I have not by far covered the whole ground. I trust, at least, I have not been unfair to anyone.


Mr. Balcer:: Would the member for Beauce allow me a question? When he said, a few moments ago, that the members of the present government were favourably inclined towards the minorities, did he have in mind the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton)?


Raoul Poulin: I may have been misunderstood. When I said the present government was favourably inclined, it was mostly as regards education.


Mr. Edgar Leduc (Jacques Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to take part in the debate on the speech from the throne. If I do so now, it is to give my views on two questions that have been discussed at some length in this house. I mean inflation and price controls.
May I first be permitted to associate myself with the congratulations previous speakers have tendered to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Messrs. Cauchon and Simmons). They were well deserved congratulations and I am indeed proud and happy to repeat them personally.
We have heard members of the opposition talk about inflation and the high cost of living. They have even suggested resorting to controls, on the grounds that they were in force and proving beneficial in the United States.
According to many economists, price controls would prove neither useful nor commendable, in view of the widespread effects of the rise in prices in all countries. Only the people can put a stop to it.
What are the causes of inflation?
Who is adversely affected by it and to what extent? What can we do to put an end to it?
Inflation is not the cause of high prices. It is a result of price increases. Unless this fact is clearly understood by the millions of people concerned, their efforts to check inflation will be futile. Even economists cannot agree amongst themselves on a definition. Inflation is a result of the fact that people at the present time have enough money to buy many more goods than are available.
The amount of money available has tripled in ten years, while the production of goods has only doubled.
Thomas B. McCabe, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, has said:
Price and wage controls only serve to hide the source of inflation. There is a danger in that. By concealing the source, there is a tendency to weaken the people's will to get at the real cause of the evil. That is the danger today.

While admitting all this, there are some who say: I do not like high prices but I have never been as well off as I am now. That is no argument.
Thanks to the progress of science and to inventions, people now enjoy the benefits of increased production and better goods. If the workman produces more, more goods are available. Production would have been just as great without inflation.
The practical way to fight inflation would be to put in a day's work in proportion to the salary received. If everyone did that, we would have not only more goods but cheaper goods. We could thus produce better quality goods and offer them at better prices, while allowing a fair margin of profit to the manufacturer. They would not then be tempted to profiteer. Then we could avoid unnecessary expenses. Economy begins at home. This is no time to make non-essential expenditures. Certain expenditures could be postponed by the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government.
Above all we must save. Compulsory savings would be an effective weapon against inflation. It would be better to deprive ourselves now of a part of our income than for our widows to be barely able to live a few months on our insurance policies.
In closing, may I quote an article by William R. Biggs, the vice-president of the Bank of New York. This article is about controls in the United States and it compares the stand taken by the Canadian government to that taken by the government of the United States.
It deals with inflation and economy in the United States. I quote:
(Text):
Before we go to the direct methods of control, it is interesting to contrast our indirect controls with those of our neighbour, Canada. Canada has enacted additional personal and corporate income taxes and various sales and excise taxes, but has so imposed this additional taxation that almost 45 per cent of the increased tax revenue has been obtained from sales and excise taxes. Furthermore, Canada has not only had a surplus in every year since the war, but expects to have a surplus in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1952-and a substantial one in relation to the size of her budget. Her national debt has been reduced over 15 per cent since 1946.
Canada not only has increased her discount rate from 1per cent to 2 per cent, but she has been realistic in the matter of encouraging savings. Recognizing the importance of accelerated public saving, she has increased the rate paid on her savings bonds by about one-half of one per cent. In other words, Canada has acted upon the necessity of higher interest rates as part of a program
The Address-Mr. heduc	*
to contain inflation. Again in Canada really tough instalment selling terms have been laid down. As just one example, the down payment for a new or used automobile is 50 per cent with only twelve months to pay.
Because of the concentration of banking into a few large banks in Canada, with branches throughout the country, the Canadian credit control system, which seeks to limit bank loans to last year's levels, has been particularly effective.
Canada has also adopted a very ingenious plan for discouraging unnecessary capital expenditures. No depreciation on new construction or new equipment will be allowed as a deduction for income tax purposes for a four-year period commencing April 1, 1951, except in certain categories considered essential to defence or basic to national development. This should prove to be, over the long run, an extremely effective way of reducing unnecessary capital expenditures and, hence, should relieve the strain on the supply of raw materials.
These indirect controls add up to an effective program which has some real teeth in it. They have also the great advantage over direct controls of not requiring a great build-up in bureaucracy to operate and enforce them. In connection with the effectiveness of the Canadian program, it should be realized that inflation in Canada, as in the rest of the world, is affected most importantly by rising prices in this country.
Our indirect controls in the United States have been so inadequate that we have turned to direct controls. Our direct control system is built around the allocation of raw materials, price and wage ceilings. Had we set ourselves the task of attempting to control the prices and distribution of a limited number of essential raw materials, there might have been some hope for the success of such a program. Our planners, instead of proceeding on a selective basis, have put most of the economy under their so-called price and wage controls. There is obviously little or no hope of enforcing such controls under less than all-out war conditions From our experience after the last war we all know how difficult it was to control prices, particularly without rationing. But this should not have surprised us, as such has been the experience of controllers over hundreds of years.
(Translation):
According to a foreign economist who should know, Canada did well and is winning admiration abroad.
Why then these repeated criticisms whereby the opposition tries to have people believe nothing is going well in this country? If we consider our present situation and the present difficulties caused by the cold war and the defence preparations necessary to our protection and our survival, these criticisms should not be taken seriously.
In most cases I have found that the criticisms of the opposition were directed at the fact that the government was not spending more on many projects.
We find proof of this in their constant request for higher expenditures for national defence and for increased grants, while they regret the inadequacy of old age pensions.
In other words, the opposition would have the people believe that it is ready to give them more than the government is prepared
1408	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart to give. However, they also criticize the taxation set-up, which shows the inconsistency of their criticisms.
I am convinced that the Liberal government is doing its best under present circumstances and I am pleased to give it my humble support.
(Text):


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when he was secretary of state for external affairs made a speech in Hamilton. He was speaking to the politics club of McMaster university. In the course of his address he dealt quite extensively with the matter of housing, and he gave us his opinion as to how the housing problem, which is greater now than it was then, should be tackled. But what was clear and explicit in his speech was the fact that he was opposed to subsidized housing. The right hon. gentleman said:
I'm against subsidized housing because it would be available to a few privileged ones.
Of course there he showed a complete lack of knowledge of the whole philosophy behind the concept of subsidized housing; for it is not designed to help the privileged ones but rather the underprivileged. He went on to say:
It would be risking temptation to put into the hands of politicians a few thousand houses which could be given to certain persons. It would be a temptation to buy votes.
That was rather an unhappy aspersion, I suppose, upon his own colleagues; but I did not believe it then and I do not believe it now because of course subsidized housing would be handled by the municipalities or else by the provincial governments concerned. I point that out to show that the right hon. gentleman was sincerely opposed to subsidized housing and yet the government of which he is the head today is prepared to support subsidized housing. In other words, the right hon. gentleman changes with the years, as does the party of which he is the head.
The interesting fact about the Liberal party is that it thrives on theft. The more ideas it can steal from the C.C.F. platform the happier it is and the more successful it seems to be. I have no objection to that whatsoever when those ideas lead to increases in the welfare of the Canadian people; but I think it only fair to say that the Liberal party does resemble somewhat a jackdaw in its acquisitive instincts. But yesterday the Prime Minister made another categorical statement. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked him in effect what was the government's approach to federal aid to

education. The Prime Minister again spoke quite forthrightly and he said as reported at page 1355 of Hansard:
While I have the responsibility as the head of the government I would have to ask my colleagues to join with me in refusing to consider such a request.
Or to put it in a more peremptory way, the answer would be no. Well, I have no doubt that within a few years' time-this is not a matter of prophecy; it is a matter of fact-1 whatever government is in power in Canada will be entering into negotiations with the various provinces to assist education, not in the sense that anyone will attempt to take away one iota of provincial jurisdiction in the matter of education; but the fact is that the provinces and the municipalities need help if we are going to have the same high standard of education that we desire across this country. And so I think once again we shall find the Prime Minister-if he is then Prime Minister-eating his words. We shall again find the Liberal party espousing causes which were first of all presented to the house by this group, the C.C.F. party.
With respect to the demand for federal grants for education, let me place on the record this letter to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred yesterday, and which the four Winnipeg members of parliament received from Mr. A. F. Allden, secretary-treasurer of the Winnipeg school board. It states:
Dear Sir:
Re: Federal government grants to education
I beg to inform you that at the regular meeting of the school board held on the 20th instant, the following resolution was adopted:
The letter is dated November 23, 1951.
"Whereas the burden of taxation is becoming a problem to the small home owner in the city of Winnipeg;
"And whereas the aid received from the provincial government of Manitoba toward the educational costs of Winnipeg is almost negligible;
"And whereas the educational costs are a large part of the Winnipeg city budget;
"Now therefore be it resolved that the Winnipeg school board request the federal government to extend grants in aid to education and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to all Winnipeg members of parliament asking them to support this request at this session of parliament."
Of course we do request that. I have already informed the Winnipeg school board that my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), who has led this fight for federal aid to education, will carry on that struggle again next year.
Another matter about which I wish to speak is the plight of recipients of war veterans allowances. I support wholeheartedly the amendment before the house. In this connection I should like to read again

part of the brief presented by the Canadian Legion. One of the most interesting facts about briefs which have been presented by the Legion to various parliamentary committees has been their dignity and their air of reasonableness in the requests for those things they consider right and proper, which I am sure the rest of us consider in exactly the same way. The Legion recommended:
1.	That the basic rate of our war veterans allowance be increased to $50 a month for single recipients and $100 a month for married recipients, and that the income from other sources be permitted up to $250 for a single person for a year, and $500 for a married one.
2.	That where a recipient is permanently and completely unemployable and has no other income, the W.V.A. rate be $60 for a single person and $120 for a married veteran.
3.	That consideration be given to the plight of children whose parents are on W.V.A.
4.	That W.V.A. benefits be extended to Canadian veterans living outside Canada.
The reason for these grants or allowances is that those who receive them are suffering ill health today because of service in the forces. But their incapacity is such that they cannot obtain a pension. I am sure every hon. member has on his desk many piteous letters setting out the plight of these people.
Meantime the government continues to do nothing. The attitude of the government toward these people is nothing short of niggardly. Today a married veteran under this allowance receives $70, whereas before the war he received $40. But that $40 bought much more than the $70 he receives today. It is pointed out in the brief that the Legion is asking $50 for single returned men and $100 for married men.
Why do they do that? The answer is that they must receive that minimum because of the government's fiscal policy. It has decided not to introduce any controls or subsidies to curtail the cost of living. As a matter of deliberate policy the government is permitting prices to rise and those who are on pensions and allowances are suffering most severely. If the government is prepared to carry out this policy, then it ought to be prepared to fulfil its obligation toward those who are receiving these allowances that is to increase their purchasing power.
The only answer we get is that there will be a committee next year to study the matter. The need is going to be great next year, let there be no doubt about that. But it is just as great today. Many of these people cannot afford to wait until perhaps next June, when a committee may give its approval to some increase. If the government was prepared to increase the amount paid to war pensioners, then there is no reason why it could not
The Address-Mr. Adamson have gone ahead and increased these allowances under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
As the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) pointed out the other evening, those who are in receipt of these allowances are individuals who contributed in no small way to the welfare of Canada. They have contributed through their years of service and through impaired health, and they have a moral right to ask for greater consideration than they are now receiving.
I do not know why the government is not prepared to yield to the request of the Legion and the request of many hon. members that this allowance be increased. It cannot be a lack of money. Obviously, we are going to finish up this year with a large surplus and there would be more than enough to pay an increase in war veterans allowances. Nor do I think the reason is expenditures on defence. We realize the money being spent on defence is an essential expenditure; but let us remember also that we have a responsibility to those who are in need today, the very men who defended us.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss a problem of great importance, one with which I shall deal through the medium of a single case. I refer to the whole question and problem of security and loyalty. I shall refer in detail to the case of one Robert Jackson, to which I referred briefly on an earlier occasion in the house. In discussing this matter I shall require to use a certain amount of evidence now before me, and I trust hon. members who are present will bear with me while some of this material is placed on record.
I had considered moving the adjournment of the house to discuss this matter, because its importance far transcends the single individual with whose case I shall deal this afternoon. I would also suggest to the government through you, Mr. Speaker, that at this session, owing to the fact that there is no budget, private members do not have the opportunity to raise grievances. Without a budget there are no motions to go into supply and therefore no opportunities to express these grievances.
I speak therefore in this debate on the speech from the throne, despite the fact that at the present time speeches at this stage of the debate have about the same effect as spitting into the Pacific ocean would have in raising the level of that body of water. The fact that there are only twenty-four members in the chamber at this time, only four more than a quorum, emphasizes my point.

The Address-Mr. Adamson
I shall recapitulate briefly the facts concerning Jackson. He was discharged from the A. V. Roe Company in Malton on the orders of the security officials of the department. He was given no reason whatsoever for his discharge, and all attempts he has made so far to find out the reason for his discharge have failed. I might add that all attempts I have made through the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) have also failed, because of the policy of the government.
I believe that policy is wrong, that it is basically unfair and unjust and, furthermore, that it does not improve either security or loyalty. In fact it is the very opposite. I left Malton this morning where I was interviewed by one or two people whose names unfortunately I cannot give. They told me that the case had caused considerable unrest among the workers in this defence plant.
After Jackson saw me I took the trouble to go into his background. He served for approximately four years overseas with the Royal Canadian Artillery. I took the trouble to find out from his officers of that time and his associates what they thought of him and with your permission there is certain information which I think would be useful that I should like to place on the record. The first letter I have is from his former commanding officer, Colonel C. D. Crowe, who at the present time is the director of development, department of travel and publicity, government of Ontario. I would not mind tabling this letter if any hon. member wishes me to do so, but I have it here and to save time I shall read the pertinent parts. Colonel Crowe says:
I believe you have taken interest in the case of Mr. G. R. Jackson, 699 Jane street, Toronto, who was recently dismissed from his employment at the Avro plant, Malton, for alleged security reasons, the nature of which he has been kept in ignorance.
I will not recount the details of the case as I believe you have them in full. The iniquity of the matter to me seems to lie in the brush-off this man got at the hands of the security official he succeeded in interviewing at Ottawa.
This official, Jackson states, displayed complete familiarity with his army file, and after talking around that for a while, came out with the statement that the grounds for dismissal had nothing to do with army service but with some alleged devious activity Jackson is supposed to have indulged in in England.
He would not elaborate. My own suspicion is that some ill-wisher has placed a statement on Jackson's record under a promise of anonymity.
At my suggestion, I see that Jackson has given his story to the local press some days ago. I am writing now at his request to express the hope that you will pursue this matter to finality and to tell you that in my belief you can do so with complete confidence as far as Jackson's character is concerned. I simply cannot picture him in the role of communist sympathizer, and I am sure his spare time in England was devoted to his own amusements, like most soldiers, and not to attending subversive meetings.

I commanded his unit for four months in Canada and then for two years in England (11th Canadian Army Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Army). When he came into my office I immediately remembered him very clearly. In my time he had the rank of lance-sergeant and was employed as a "gun-position officer's assistant'' which called for a fair education (plane trigonometry) and general reliability and know-how.
I remember dealing summarily with two or three charges against him-overstaying leave, leaving the guard room when in command of a guard and things of that order. His main fault was probably being too mouthy but there was nothing sly about him- a plain extrovert.
I have questioned him at some length here and have formed the conclusion that in this case the present government's celebrated "screening" machinery has slipped badly and that injustice has been done. This injustice could only be corrected if officialdom would come clean and tell the man what they have against him and give him a chance to refute or explain the allegation.
I am certain that in taking up his case you are on sound ground.
Yours very truly,
C. D. Crowe
Lieutenant Colonel RCA (Ret.).
I have another letter from a personal friend of mine, W. E. Fleury, of Fleury and Arthur, well-known architects. Mr. Fleury writes to me personally as follows:
Dear Rodney:
I understand from Jackson that you are investigating the case of his dismissal from the A. V. Roe Canada Limited on grounds of alleged subversive activities in England during the last war.
He dropped into my office on Friday last, November 16, and mentioned that you would be pleased to receive any comments which I-as a former officer of his-would care to make to you.
Jackson was a member of the battery in which I enlisted in December, 1939, and had become a lance-sergeant (C.P.O.A.) before the time when I left the regiment in January, 1941.
During that time there certainly was no indication of any extra-regimental activities by Jackson to my knowledge, and I have since spoken to one or two officers who were in the regiment at that time, and they have indicated that they were unaware of it-if any such activities were taking place.
I may say that Jackson carried out his duties efficiently, and if any criticism were to be made, it would probably be that he had a tendency to be a bit of a barrack-room lawyer and a trifle oververbose at times.
I should be pleased to hear from you, if it is not too much trouble, whatever developments arise out of your enquiries. For while naturally one cannot know all the circumstances concerning a man's activities outside of the regiment, I should be very surprised to learn that Jackson was indulging in subversive work during the time when I knew him in the regiment.
With kindest regards
Yours very sincerely,
W. E. Fleury
I have another letter from Professor J. Fisher of Victoria University. He states that he is a professor of English and was visited by Jackson who had served under him. He then goes on to say in part:
What I have to say about him (Jackson) relates to the year 1940 only. On Dec. 14 of that year, I

was posted to OCTU as an officer cadet, and I eventually served with the 1st Fd. Kegt. But although I did not to my knowledge see him again while we were overseas, I was in close and continuous contact with him during most of 1940. The big events of that year, you will remember, were Dunkirk and the battle of Britain; throughout the critical months involved, Jackson and I were in the same regiment, the same battery, the same troop, and the same command post; and in view of the fact that all of us were being kept on the alert against fifth columnist activities as well as against invasion, it is hardly likely that Jackson could have done anything suspect without my knowing it.
He then goes on to give his opinion of Jackson, and continues:
I have made every effort to remember anything at all that might cast suspicion on Jackson's reliability in the insecure world of 1951. Having done so, I cannot recall any such thing. It is significant that when I read his letter to the press, I concluded that some other Jackson must be the man in trouble.
I remember, as his only fault, that he could be stubborn. But stubbornness is a good fault in a soldier, and Jackson was stubborn in a harmless way.
I have another letter from R. B. Dale-Harris of McDonald, Currie and Company, well-known chartered accountants in Toronto, who says:
Dear Mr. Adamson:
It has come to my notice that there has been a considerable amount of disturbance and discussion over the dismissal of a certain employee of the A. V. Roe Canada Limited, one Jackson by name.
I have no knowledge of Jackson's present standing in the community nor do I know whether or not he has any particular political leanings. He was, however, well known to me in the army in 1940 and 1941 when he was serving in the same unit as I in England. At that time he was a satisfactory and dependable soldier, and I should have expected him to become a responsible and loyal citizen on discharge.
In the hope the above may be of some use to you, I am
Yours sincerely,
R. B. Dale-Harris
There are several others, all from responsible persons. There is one from an N.C.O. who served with him. I think it is pertinent to quote the last paragraph. He says:
The state of affairs indicated by this case should be adequately corrected and in a hurry for the protection of the public. Since I doubt most decidedly that anyone can openly point to anything subversive in regard to Jackson, he should be immediately reinstated in his job with suitable public retraction and reimbursement to clear his name. Please note that time counts with the small man. He cannot wait for weeks and months for justice to function. Jackson is already heavily out of pocket. I and my friends will be following closely the steps taken to correct these inroads on our democratic ways and to get justice for Jackson In particular.
Yours very truly,
K. Cooper
ex L/Sgt. 9th Bty., 11th Cdn. A.F. Regt.
The addresses are all given in these letters. I think that shows that at least there is a very grave question as to the position taken
1411
The Address-Mr. Adamson by the government. His commanding officer, battery commander, troop commander and an N.C.O. who served with him, as well as others who know him more recently, have come to me because I was interested in the case and have said that they know nothing subversive whatsoever about Jackson. Apparently he is being accused of some sort of activity that took place during the war and no opportunity has been given this man to refute these allegations which have cost him his job and his livelihood.
The whole question of loyalty and security is a matter of enormous importance to this house and the people of Canada. In my capacity as a security officer during the war I had a lot to do with the matter of security and loyalty and I am perhaps in a position to discuss this matter with a certain background and knowledge of the problems at stake. I want for the sake of illustration to put on the record part of an article in the form of an interview appearing in the U.S. News and World Report of November 23. It is an interview with Hiram Bingham, chairman of the United States loyalty board and is entitled, "Catching the Disloyal". He gives certain very definite answers to questions which I think are of great importance to us in Canada.
I am not one who advocates that we should in any way follow what they are doing in the United States. In fact I have been, if anything, one who believes in our standing on our own feet more than we are. However, they have this problem and they have been trying to meet it. They have had it to a far more serious degree than we have in Canada, and I commend to the house the whole article and the answers given by the chairman of the board. It reads in part:
Q. As chairman of the loyalty review board, Mr. Bingham, your work is to review the work of the 100 or more loyalty boards-is that right?
A. Our first job is to lay down rules and regulations so as to make the whole procedure of the loyalty program uniform. The department and agency boards had been doing different things, so we were instructed by the president to lay down the rules and regulations for the entire program. Also we are the highest board of appeal for any persons adjudged ineligible by lower boards and by the heads of the different departments and agencies. Also we review under what's known as "post audit'' cases that are cleared by the lower boards after full field investigation.
Q. Your board doesn't have any investigating machinery itself?
A. No. The F.B.I. is the sole investigating agency under the loyalty program. Loyalty boards don't investigate; they weigh the reports received from the F.B.I., hold hearings as necessary and decide loyalty cases.
Q. You have two main considerations, loyalty and security?
A. No, we have nothing to do with security.
Q. What is the difference between the two as you see it?
A. Security is much broader than loypR.v.

The Address-Mr. Adamson
I shall come to that in a minute. Then the interview continues, and I shall read only a few of the pertinent questions and answers.
Q. What about all this that you hear about some employee being accused and not having any information given to him as to where the charges arise from?
A. Those cases, so far as I have been able to discover, are mostly in the security field, where you don't have to give specific charges, where under the law the head of any one of the ten departments and agencies mentioned, and any others the president may put ini, may be told by his security officer-they all have security officers-that he is a "security risk". The head of the agency may suspend him. I have known of cases where a man got a letter telling him that he had been suspended and the reason that he had been suspended was too confidential to tell him. There is something wrong about that, but that has nothing to do with loyalty.
There again you see that the question of dismissal on security grounds also exists in the United States, but when anybody is dismissed in the United States he has an opportunity to state his case, not through the loyalty board but through the officials of the security board of his own department. That is bad enough, but in Canada a man so discharged gets no opportunity at all to state his case to anyone. The article continues:
Q. Why isn't your board empowered to consider the security risk?
A. The president, in the last paragraph of executive order 9835, says. "You will have nothing to do With security cases".
Q. But why is that?
A. It may be because the acts of congress relating to security matters gave the authority to dismiss for security reasons to only a few departments and agencies, whereas the order establishing the loyalty review board is more comprehensive.
Q. Wouldn't it be better if just one board did it?
A. It would be much better, in my opinion. There are a number of times when our panel is in doubt about a person but cannot say that there is a reasonable doubt.
Then it goes on to discuss communist agents and the futility of administering an oath of loyalty to anybody who is a communist. I will not read that part but it is of great importance. I come now to the actions of the board, and it reads as follows:
Q. They have what they call "security officers"-
He is referring to the individual departments of the United States.
-in a department, for example. Do their reports go to a loyalty board?
A. No, that's security. But in most departments it is the same board. In the state department the board is called the loyalty and security board. The commerce department is the only one that separates them, and has a loyalty board and a security board.
Q. Such a double board, then, might know from security channels damaging facts that could be used in judgment on the loyalty question?
A. Yes.
TMr. Adamson.]

Q. Does anybody keep any check on the disloyal former employees, what becomes of them afterwards, where they go to get jobs, whether they drift back into these communist-front organizations?
A. No.
Then it goes on, and I will read one more passage. It is as follows:
Q. How do they (the discharged employees) make a living?
A. Having chosen to act in a manner which led the loyalty review board to find a reasonable doubt as to their loyalty, they have put themselves in a very bad position to get a job requiring loyalty . . . and find it extremely hard to get subsequent employment.
Q. When they are dismissed from the government, they are dismissed because they are assumed to be dangerous, or disloyal, and then they go somewhere else to get a job where they might continue their disloyalty?
A. They have to try to get a job. We never publish the names. We give no publicity to any of our activities. If there's any publicity, it is all given by the man himself or his counsel.


Mr. McCulloch:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege may I ask if the hon. member is supposed to read from a magazine to such an extent that the quotation constitutes the whole speech?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has been reading quotations from a magazine. I think he has given the quotations and is coming to the end.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am coming to the end shortly. I am doing this in order to show the set-up of the loyalty boards and the security machinery in the United States. This is hardly an editorial. It is merely the statement of the head of the loyalty board in the United States. It goes on to say that a man, if discharged for security or disloyalty reasons, has great difficulty, and in fact finds it impossible to get a job after he has been so discharged. I continue the quotation:
Problem of unfairness
Q. But can't there be some way for all the problems to be dealt with centrally?
That is, loyalty and security.
A. The only criticism that I have to make of the program as it is at present is that the individual has no right of appeal from a decision on security outside the agency. If the security officer makes up his mind that this person is a bad risk, that person can be heard by the agency, but-perhaps you remember in the middle of July the president decided that this question needed investigation by the national security council. He is the chairman of it himself. About the middle of July he wrote a letter to the executive secretary of the national security council, asking the council to investigate the question of security and the charges of unfairness, and to make recommendations to see if anything should be done about it.
In the United States you have the question raised about unfairness but there, if a man is discharged as a bad security risk, he has

an opportunity to appeal and to be heard by the security board of the department in which he is employed. Nothing like that procedure exists in Canada. He has no opportunity at all. He is discharged and he has no redress and no opportunity to answer, not charges that he knows of but charges that he does not know of. In my opinion that is an intolerable miscarriage of justice. As to the question of loyalty and security, there are basic differences between them but both can be treated by the same machinery. I want to say that nothing I propose to suggest will in any way give away the hand of the security officers or the subversive activity officers engaged in the various departments of government or in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The thing can be done without in any way disclosing the operations of any undercover individual who may be working at the present time in Canada.
There are today three basic freedoms: freedom of life; freedom of the person, generally known as habeas corpus; and the freedom to work. To take away any of them in this modern age results in a failure of essential justice. In fact, it is much worse; it is the act of a dictatorship. Today if a man is discharged for security or loyalty reasons he finds it virtually impossible to obtain further employment. When he goes to a prospective employer the first questions he is asked are:	Where did you work before? Why did
you leave? Then the immediate answer to the employee discharged for security reasons is: Oh, we want no communists here; and that is the natural answer. The result is that the man does not get a job. Unless that man has an opportunity to hear the charges raised against him, and answer them if he can, it is impossible for him to obtain a livelihood in Canada today. If he is a communist, I have no mercy on him. He is a declared enemy of mine, and nothing I can do or would advocate doing to keep him out of our society could be sufficiently drastic. But it is basic that you cannot accuse a man of anything, and thus deprive him of his right to make a living, without letting him know what he is accused of doing. That, Mr. Speaker, is a basic principle of justice. It is the third great freedom; and in this economic age of our civilization it is as basic as the other two.
I want to make a suggestion to the government, and it is this. I suggest that there be established panels of personnel available to sit on security and loyalty boards, and that no man be discharged for security or loyalty reasons without having an opportunity to state his case before one of those boards. I would suggest that the composition of those boards be something like 94699-911
The Address-Mr. Adamson this. I suggest that there be set up in the department in question a panel of personnel from which the boards may be chosen. In other words the Department of National Defence would have a panel of personnel who could be drawn on to form the membership of these boards; the Department of Defence Production would have a panel of personnel, as would the Department of External Affairs and the other departments necessarily doing secret or what has been called classified work, from which personnel can be drawn. Second, I suggest that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) have a panel of personnel drawn from persons of probity known to him and possibly known either through the mounted police dealing with security or legal counsel or others of good repute and sound judgment. I suggest that the third panel be chosen by the Speaker of the House of Commons. It need not necessarily be chosen from members of the House of Commons, but I feel that it should contain a fair number of members of this honourable house; because if there is any function we have today in Canada, and if there is any function any freely elected parliament has, it is to protect the freedom of the individual. The freedom of an individual can be in jeopardy from his own government just as easily as it can be in jeopardy from the government of an outside power. I suggest that these three panels be set up. When there is a case for investigation, one member from each of the three panels could be chosen as a board to review the case. The evidence against the individual could be given to the board, and he could appear to reply. Under this system there need be no disclosure of the methods by which the evidence was obtained. The board would deal with the case of each individual who appealed against his dismissal.
Under this method, Mr. Speaker, you would have security through the departmental member of the board who would know the type of work being done by the individual; you would have loyalty through the board member appointed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). Furthermore, through the appointment by the Speaker of this house you would safeguard the liberty of the individual. My knowledge of security, loyalty and subversive activities during the war was reasonably extensive. As district intelligence officer for the largest military district in Canada my office worked with the mounted police, who were entirely responsible for loyalty, security and subversive activities. The fact that there was so little subversive activity in Canada during the war illustrates the

The Address-Mr. Anderson
effectiveness of the methods adopted by the mounted police, yet at no time do I remember a man being held without explanation. Essential justice for the individual was maintained during the war. Under this system justice for the individual is not being maintained. The government now can take away a man's livelihood; can make him a pariah amongst his fellows; can destroy his reputation and make him a social outcast; can take away his ability to earn, without ever letting him have an opportunity of answering the unknown charges which are made against him.
In all seriousness I say to this house it is an act of vicious dictatorship, perhaps thoughtless but nevertheless an act of dictatorship. If we are to carry on our fight against communism, we must continue our fight for freedom, justice, security and for the dignity of the individual. If we allow these things to be destroyed through the methods I have mentioned we are in very truth giving aid and comfort to the enemy.


Mr. R. E. Anderson (Norfolk):: I must apologize, Mr. Speaker, for entering this debate at this late date, but there are a few mattets I should like to bring to the attention of the house. I shall not take very long. This is my first attempt to bring my own county of Norfolk to the fore, and to speak for other tobacco growing counties within Canada.
First of all I should like to speak about tobacco growing in my area. The crop is grown on land that was submarginal or nonproductive for any other crop. This same submarginal land, and the tobacco growers, have contributed much to Canada's national economy. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), for whom I have great respect, had a resolution on the order paper earlier this year dealing with the evils of cigarette smoking for the very young. His points were well taken, but I am afraid tobacco is here to stay. This product does provide employment for a great number of people.
The business of growing tobacco started a good many years ago in Norfolk. For the first few years the venture was a failure, or nearly so. However, my people determined that they would not be beaten, and we have now one of the best flue-cured tobacco growing districts on the continent. Up to and including those first few years all flue-cured tobaccos were imported. At first sales for processing were carried on in large centres outside the province.
Several years ago this government started the dominion experimental substation at Delhi under Mr. Vickery. I believe this


government should be complimented, because the station has done wonderful work by introducing new varieties that have stepped up the quality and production generally. In 1951 approximately 100 million pounds of tobacco were grown and sold within my own county.
Tobacco growers usually have to borrow money from the banks in order to cover the expense of growing their crops. The entire year's income is determined by one sale that lasts only a few minutes or at most an hour or so, usually with only a few buyers present. These farmers are in the same position as a labourer who works a full year without pay, borrows from the bank in order to live, and then takes whatever he can get at the end of the year, whether or not it is sufficient to repay the bank. Many of our growers find themselves in the position of not having enough to do that.
Today we have large tobacco processing factories in Simcoe and Delhi which employ hundreds of men and women. We have to contend with a short growing season and late spring frosts that sometimes ruin an entire planting. I recall that in 1949 the first planting froze; the second and third plantings dried out, and some farmers made a fourth planting before they got a stand of tobacco. These people would not be beaten. They worked all the daylight hours, not just an eight-hour day. Grandpa and everyone who could carry a plant or use a spade worked. Any touch of frost on tobacco ruins it and makes it unfit to cure. If it does go through the kiln once it has been frozen, it becomes so brittle it cannot be handled. The harvest cannot be hurried, and the crop must be taken as it ripens. A leaf that is too green is no good. Then there is hail and dry weather. All during the summer something was always happening to someone to spoil his crop. Wages are high, running as high as $13 a day in some instances, but generally $10 to $12. When a man employs ten to twenty workers you can see that it takes a lot of cash each day. This year the crop was sold at reasonable prices, even the part grown by the free-lance growers who are not in the Ontario tobacco growers' marketing board. I am thinking about the future.
That brings up the matter of cigarette prices. You can all remember that previous to the last war cigarettes retailed for 20 cents per package of twenty, and for a short time twenty-five for 20 cents. The price is now 42 cents in most of Canada, running as high as 46 to 47 cents in some provinces. The 42 cent price is arrived at by taxation, the manufacturers' part and the trade. There was a manufacturers' increase this year of 3 cents,

which brings the price, other than taxes, to 17 cents in Ontario. This 17 cents is almost as high as the price at which United States cigarettes sell. Our own tax here is higher than the United States price per package. The two added together amount to twice the United States price.
This brings up the question of smuggling. I am afraid it is on the increase, despite all the good work carried out by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who have so few men to cover the whole boundary line and check the smugglers from the United States who see an opportunity to make money by carrying to our side of the boundary millions and millions of United States cigarettes. Hundreds of thousands of these smuggled cigarettes are seized each year, as well as many cars and trucks, and sometimes teams of horses used in smuggling. We started out many years ago importing our entire needs, and grew from that to be an exporting nation. Great Britain takes large amounts each year. Now again we are importing tobacco in the form of United States cigarettes, illegally I admit, but just the same the fact remains that we are now again importing, and this should not be so.
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that our own market should be kept as nearly as possible for our own growers and manufacturers, and our manufacturers should watch their own prices as well as the government tax. If you will permit me I should like to read an editorial from my own paper, the Simcoe Reformer, under date of November 26, which reads as follows:
It is evident that tobacco growers are not the only ones to suffer by reason of slumping cigarettes sales, the result of excessive excise taxes. Press reports during the past week have announced that a sizeable group of employees were laid off by the Tuckett Tobacco Company in Hamilton, while in Montreal more than 200 employees of the Imperial Tobacco Company are joining the ranks of the unemployed and a similar lay-off in the company's Hamilton plant is anticipated. This serious situation is a direct consequence of exorbitant government taxation on Canadian-made cigarettes coupled with the wholesale smuggling of United States cigarettes into Canada. Withdrawals of cigarettes for consumption in Canada during September were down nearly 50 per cent, indicating the severe nature of the body-blow to the tobacco industry. Growers, manufacturers, employees, retail dealers and consumers are all being seriously affected by the excise tax of 621 per cent levied by the federal government.
I do not know where this paper got that information, but they thought it was right.
One of the chief reasons our tax structure is so out of line with the United States is that when our own budget was brought down last April there was a bill before the United States congress proposing a sharp increase in cigarette taxation. This bill did not pass, at least
The Address-Mr. Anderson in the original form. This brings up the question of our own taxation, and I would like to refer the house to Hansard of Friday, November 23, 1951 at page 1279, from which I quote. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) asked the following question:
I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I recognize that he cannot go into too much explanation, since I have not given him notice of it. In view of the rumours started by certain circulars affecting the tobacco industry of this country, is there any intention of introducing what might be called an interim or "baby" budget during this session?
The Prime Minister replied:
No, there is no such intention.
This may or may not indicate that no taxation change will be made this session; but no doubt, as is common with government policy, this matter will be under consideration and watched carefully before the next budget is brought down.
I have another matter on which I should like to speak for a little while. It is the problem of the dairy farmer. A few days ago in this house the matter of bank hours was under consideration and farmers did not take it kindly. I would like to point out here that dairy cows are milked twice daily. This brings milking time twelve hours apart, and a five-day week or an eight-hour day would not go well with the dairy farmer or his cow. Fluid milk is now becoming very high in price, and I am afraid that consumers will buy less and deprive children of the most complete food on the market today. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the farmer does not get over half the money that milk retails at, and he must own, feed and otherwise care for his cows, pay trucking to the city, pay veterinary bills, have part of the milk designated surplus and often have milk returned.
It is interesting to learn from responsible sources that in the period from 1945 to 1951 our population increased by 2 million, and in the same period our dairy cow population decreased by 456,300 head. Our total production is down by 1,200 million pounds, and our per capita consumption has dropped by 292 pounds. Our butter production decreased by 40 million pounds in the same period, and our cheese by 97 million pounds. Our population is increasing; our milk supply is decreasing. Is Canada to become a country that will have to import all its butter, and use its milk for home consumption? What are we doing about it? Not enough, I am afraid.
I hold in my hand a pamphlet from which I should like to read a few extracts. In 1949' we produced 74 million pounds of margarine in Canada. In the year 1951 we produced 105 million pounds. That production was up 31 million pounds. Butter, cheese and cows are down, but margarine is up.

The Address-Mr. Thomas


Mr. Hodgson:: Let us change the government.


Raymond Elmer Anderson: I quote the following:
The lack of confidence on the part of 450,000 dairy farmers as to the future of the industry as a result of the unfair competition created by inadequate controls on substitutes manufactured from cheap foreign produced oils. (An increasingly large portion of these oils, at prices of only 12 cents to 15 cents per pound, are imported without duty of any kind. The balance, from a country which has banned the import of Canadian dairy products, pay duty of about 11 cents a pound only.)
The production, manufacture, processing and distribution of dairy products in some 2,000 dairy plants provide a direct or indirect livelihood to 17 per cent of our population. In contrast, dairy substitutes are produced by about ten companies, the majority of which are packing houses and large international soap concerns.
The decline in the dairy industry has become so acute that in 1951 Canada, an agricultural country, imported 21 million pounds of butter; 10 million pounds of cheese; 6 million pounds of non-fat dry milk powder and was unable to supply sufficient fluid market milk to meet the demands of many urban centres in western Canada.
Just a few years ago dairy products were among Canada's biggest exports. Today, with a deteriorating international situation we are not able to meet our own domestic needs. This is a national problem.
Unless these trends are halted immediately, prices for all milk products as well as beef and veal (about half of which come from dairy herds) will become scarcer and more costly.
From the Gazette, under date of November 7, 1951, we get the following:
The dairy industry is too important and too vital a source of food supplies to be allowed to expire, or nearly so, by a process of default and indifference.
There is another small matter I should like to bring to the attention of the house. 1 do not know how serious hon. members may consider it, but I think it is serious. I refer to the lowering of the water table in some parts of Canada. I know districts where gas wells have been drilled and farmers have had great difficulty in obtaining sufficient water for their livestock. Every new block of housing and every new industry coming to our cities and smaller towns adds to this difficulty. We are in a period of expansion that cannot and must not stop. I believe we are overlooking one important and never-ending source of supply, namely that provided by rainwater held in cisterns. Furthermore, it is free. The needs of any household, apart from cooking, could be taken care of in this inexpensive way.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Welaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words with respect to the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch); and my words will be few indeed. First of all I should like to thank the government for the pension legislation for veterans. At the same time I was amazed to see that the

government failed to recognize the need of another group of veterans who are in equally distressing circumstances, and who are often worse off than the pensioners. Speaking on this subject the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) said he was sure all members of the House of Commons who are veterans would support the amendment to the amendment.
I fear, however, that after seeing the attitude taken by some government members last spring in the veterans committee I fail to share his optimism.
At the present time the war veterans allowance is $40.41 for single and $70.83 for married veterans. To say the least, these amounts are inadequate. The last increase in the war veterans allowance was given in 1948, when the cost of living index stood at about 155. The first representations for a further increase came in April of 1949, when the index stood at 160 8. The present index stands at 190-4; and there is no doubt in my mind that when the new index figure is given at the first of the month it will be even higher.
I should like to read briefly from the brief presented last spring to the veterans committee by the Canadian Legion. They said, in part:
If we were consistent with our figures in 1947 we would now be asking for more than $65 for the single man and about $113 for the married person. We are, however, repeating our request for $50 for the individual and are asking $100 for the married couple. This departure from our former brief in regard to the married couple is noteworthy but it is made necessary by the cold facts of existence. Actually, according to the latest figures supplied by the Toronto welfare council as of November 1950 (which are appended to this brief), what we ask for is far below minimal living requirements. On the basis of that organization's research, a single veteran requires a minimum of $93.34 per month and a married veteran without children $153.43. It will be noted that the present rates are lers than half of these minimal requirements and the W.V.A. which originally recognized that the condition of these men was attributable to war service, now functions on something less than a minimal relief basis.
This brief was presented last spring when the cost of living index stood at 179. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, and most ably by the hon. member for Acadia, the war veterans allowance now is worth far less than it was even at the $40 limit many years ago.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Legion and the other service organizations that this war veterans allowance should be boosted considerably. Also I agree it should be boosted at least to the amount asked for by service organizations. However, for my own part I would far rather see the war veterans allowance tied to the cost of living index and put on an escalator scale. Even if the increases asked for by the various veterans organizations were brought into effect the

veterans would still be getting less in purchasing power than they were in 1946, and prior to that.
Many of these people are living in abject poverty. I know personally of many cases where they just cannot get along. They are piling up debts; they cannot afford to buy fuel for the winter, and they are in very serious circumstances. In my opinion the means test should be abolished altogether in connection with the war veterans allowance. However, if the government is not willing to abolish it, then I suggest that at least it should increase the maximum of the war veterans allowance to the amount of the income tax exemption.
In many provinces today war veterans lllowance recipients are getting far less than old age pensioners. For example, in my own province of Alberta they now receive $50 a month old age pension, plus medical, dental, optical and hospital care. Under the new old age pension legislation there will be no means test. I cannot see why the same should not apply to the recipients of war veterans allowances. These men were burnt out through rendering service to this country. They are being paid for a service that has been rendered and disabilities acquired as a result of that service. If so, they should be paid adequately.
I regret that the veterans committee was not set up at this session, but I would suggest that if the government insists that it should not be set up it could at least give an interim increase in the war veterans allowance, and then set up the committee at the next session to deal with the whole field of veterans legislation. I should like to repeat what was said by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) and again by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), that if the government will indicate its willingness to bring down legislation at this session to increase the war veterans allowance, we will be only too glad to withdraw our amendment so the veterans at least will have a square break.
When setting up the committee next spring I would hope the terms of reference would be broad enough to take in and adequately deal with all veterans legislation. For example, we have knowledge as to the plight of many of the widows and dependents of recipients who under the act should be receiving medical treatment. We would like also to see widows of imperial veterans who have lived here twenty years or more but whose husbands died prior to the twenty year neriod given allowances such as would
The Address-Mr. Thomas
be given to their husbands had they remained alive. We should like to see England declared to be a theatre of war during world war I so that many veterans who are suffering disabilities as a result of the conditions which obtained in England at that time may obtain benefits under this act. We should like to see those veterans who took up land under the soldier settlement scheme given dear title. All these things should be dealt with adequately when the veterans committee is set up, I hope early in the next session.
I should like to say one brief word about the Kurt Meyer case. Kurt Meyer was convicted of murdering nineteen Canadian boys during the last war or immediately afterward. He was convicted of ruthlessly slaughtering some of the best men we could have had in Canada. If the government does not agree that Kurt Meyer should be allowed to visit his family they should bring him back to Canada where they can keep an eye on him and have him remain where he belongs. If the government agrees that Kurt Meyer should be allowed to visit his wife and family on compassionate grounds, then they should follow the same line of reasoning and allow every murderer or life termer in Canada to go home for Christmas to see their families. If Kurt Meyer, a German murderer of Canadian boys, is permitted to go home to see his wife and family because he has not seen them for some time, surely convicted Canadian murderers should have the same right to visit their families over Christmas. This would apply particularly to those who are under sentence of death, not because they have not seen their families for some time but because when they do hang it will be a long time before they see them again. It is absolutely ridiculous that because a man is a general and is put in a military prison he should be given privileges denied to Canadian criminals. Kurt Meyer should be brought back to Canada immediately and placed in a prison here where the Canadian government can keep an eye on him. After all he has been sentenced, and he should have to serve that sentence.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to add my support to the amendment now before the house, but before doing so I should like to congratulate the minister and through him the cabinet for the generous response they have made to the pleas on behalf of the veterans. They have accepted practically all that the Legion and other veteran organizations asked for. The veterans generally are pleased with this increase in the disability pension, but they

The Address-Mr, Jones are still unhappy about some of their comrades who have an equal claim on the government for pensions.
I refer to the burnt-out veterans. It has been well established for years that the majority of the men who served in any theatre of war underwent nervous strains because of the fear that most good soldiers felt at some time or another. The high explosive shells and other activities in the theatre of war had definite and lasting effects upon the fear-consciousness of individuals. Some soldiers were strong enough to withstand this impact and were able to come back with limb and mind sound; others came back with limb or mind damaged, while others gave their lives.
Those who have the marks of battle clearly visible or are able to establish physical disability in some form or other have received a fair and necessary adjustment of their claims for compensation. However, there are others whose disabilities cannot be so easily assessed. Some day medical science will be able to assess this type of mental and physical disability on an approved basis. In the meantime, it is known that these disabilities do exist and on the basis of this knowledge the government has granted allowances to burnt-out veterans.
The impairment to their body and mind is hard to assess, but it is known that this impairment exists and that their life expectancy has been shortened by several years. This fact is accepted by both the medical profession and the Department of Veterans Affairs. An examination of first war veterans who are still living today would furnish further proof of this contention if such were needed. You would find men of 50 and 55 years of age who are old men before their time. The rigours of war have left undeniable but unseen scars upon them. There are men who have suffered for years from these unassessed and uncompensated disabilities.
I claim that the government should remove these men from the classification they are now in, that is charity recipients or burnt-out pensioners. They should be placed in their proper category as disability pensioners. Many of these men have found from experience that their unseen disability has handicapped them on the labour market. They have already paid a heavy penalty through their inability to compete in the modern industrial world. We should look at this problem in its true light and realize that these are permanent disabilities just as much as a leg that has been amputated. We should regard these veterans who do not bear the visible scars of war as having equal rights with the disability pensioners.

In my opinion these men are definitely and distinctly war casualties, and are entitled to pensions as such. In their case the same consideration should be given to the fact that the cost of living has gone up and the value of the dollar today is roughly only 50 cents. That is why I support this amendment which calls for an immediate increase in war veterans allowances. I should like to go further and ask the government to consider these war casualties as being undistinguishable under the act from those veterans who bear the marks of battle more plainly.
I urge that the government meet the request of the Canadian Legion. I should like to ask for more, but at least the minimum should be $50 a month for single men and $100 a month for married men. The minister should make a clear-cut announcement; then the mover of this subamendment might be willing to withdraw it. In any case before the vote is taken today a clear statement should be made that something will definitely be done for these veterans so that they may have the happy Christmas they deserve and which they have earned the hard way, working and fighting for you and me.


Mr. Fulton:: I was paired with the hon.	
member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart), who is ill. Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.
The Address-Mr. Hees


Mr. Ross (Souris):: I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.


Gordon Graydon: I was paired with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Had it not been for the rubber stamp system of the Liberal party, the soldiers would have had a better break.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the contribution a member of parliament is able to make in this house depends to a large extent upon the contact he is able to maintain with his constituents during the session. This is an easy matter for those of us who live within three or four hundred miles of Ottawa, but I believe it is made unnecessarily difficult for those whose ridings are at greater distances.
I say "unnecessarily difficult" because if members who live more than three or four hundred miles away were given passes on Trans-Canada Air Lines they would be able to keep in close touch with their constituents, their families and their occupations, much as we who live close to Ottawa are able to do by rail. After all, it would affect less than half the members of this house. For instance, Mr. Speaker, I live in Toronto. I am able to leave Ottawa on Friday night at eleven o'clock and have breakfast in Toronto the next day. I leave Toronto early Sunday night, and I am here the next morning. This is very easy for those of us who live close to Ottawa. I believe there is no reason why air passes should not make it just as easy for those who live at greater distances.
As the business of parliament increases year by year and sessions become longer, even extending into two sessions a year as has been the case this year, it becomes increasingly important that members should be able to maintain close contact with their constituents, their families, and the occupations upon which they will have to rely to support themselves and their families should they be defeated at the polls. If members who live at great distances are not given air passes, I believe it will become increasingly difficult to get young men to stand for parliament, and it will become increasingly difficult for some sitting members to remain. If either is the case, I believe parliament will suffer. I urge upon the government, therefore, to give this matter serious consideration.
I should like to speak now on something' which, although it does not come under the jurisdiction of this parliament, I believe does
1420	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knight more to bring the east and west together than anything we say or do in this house. I am speaking about the annual Grey cup football final. No one is more interested than I am in having that game played in Toronto, because I live within two blocks of the stadium. I have a nine-year-old daughter who operates a very lucrative parking business on our driveway, and I would have to answer to her if any change were made. In all fairness, however, I believe this game should alternate between the east and west each year. I believe, also, that the year it is played in the west it should be played in the city whose team won the western championship. When it is played in the east, I believe it should be played in the city whose team has won the eastern championship.
Although other stadiums are not as large as Toronto, it seems to me to be extremely important that those who have supported a team during the regular season should be able to see that team play in the final. I believe this consideration outweighs the greater gate receipts which could be obtained in the larger stadium. I believe it is important also for the west to have the game played out there just as often as we have it in the east. It would do easterners a great deal of good to make that trip every second year and sample western hospitality. Speaking as a member who was fortunate enough to be in the west this year, I can say that western hospitality is certainly everything it is said to be, and then some. I believe the great number who would make that trip every year would ultimately bring the east and west closer together.
I appeal to the football clubs and the directors of the C.R.U. to realize that this game is not merely a game of football, but is now an important national event. I believe these people would be making a contribution to Canadian unity, as well as winning the approval of those who support the teams during the regular season, if they would follow the suggestion I have made.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: I was keenly disappointed, and indeed hurt, by the categorical and adamant reply given by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when the latter drew to the Prime Minister's attention the request from some educational body in Winnipeg for the extension of federal aid in the realm of general education. I have not the Prime Minister's statement before me, but I hope to give the gist of it correctly. He said that as long as he was head of the government he would have to advise his associates not to


extend such aid to general education. May I advise him that times change, opinions change, and even governments and prime ministers change. I was struck by the remark made this afternoon by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) when he said in effect: Ni le premier ministre, ni ce gouveme-ment n'est etemel.
The Prime Minister has appeared adamant on certain other occasions of which: I have some recollection. I remember one occasion some years ago when he said that he saw no reason why he, on the attainment of 70 years, should receive an old age pension without a means test. Well, he will receive one on January 1, and I hope he will have many years in which to enjoy it. Tempora mutantur et in eis nos. I remember the time the Prime Minister said that he would never be the head of the government that would legislate for a system of subsidized housing.
The Prime Minister has issued a challenge and a taunt to the millions of people in this country who believe in federal aid to education. I deplore, and I blame him for the fact that he has, by his words, crystallized and hardened among his own political followers such opposition as there is to this cause. I said "opposition", but most of it is expedient rather than real. Apparently a Liberal member from Saskatchewan, for instance, is to have no choice in this matter. He is faced with what is virtually a threat. If I am to stay, says the Prime Minister, then there will be no federal aid to education.
Sir, I believe, and I believe sincerely, that a great many Liberal members from many parts of this country, and certainly from the Canadian west favour, just as 90 per cent of their constituents favour, this matter of federal aid. But their leader, the Prime Minister, holds over them the club which he used at yesterday's session. By so doing he denies to them the right of expression in this house, and what is more important, he denies to the children of Canada that equality of education which is their right. Mr. Speaker, I use this opportunity to express the opinion that not only in this matter but in other matters it is becoming apparent that this government is virtually a one-party dictatorship. One hundred Liberal members could leave this house at this present moment and it would not have any effect whatsoever upon the government of this country.


Mr. Noseworthy:: They could all leave and it would not have any effect.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) asked once: "If we want to do anything, who is going to stop us?" Government, from the top down, is becoming more and more dictatorial. The cabinet has

assumed more and more a dominant position in the government of this country, and now it seems that the Prime Minister himself has become a more and more dominant influence in that cabinet.
Is the Prime Minister to be allowed to go unchallenged, to muzzle-not only for today, because that is not so bad, but for the future -the free expression of the opinion of private members? That again, sir, and the tendency to autocracy in government which I see indicated, the tendency towards cabinet control, must be condemned and curbed.
In conclusion, sir, I wish to say to the Prime Minister that I shall make a prediction. As surely as time goes on, whether this government is still in power and whether my right hon. friend is still Prime Minister, the day will come when we shall have in this country not only the old age pension legislation and the aid to universities, which we now have, but also a system of subsidized housing, which he deplored, and federal aid to education, upon the opposition to which he stakes his political existence. I say that with certainty, not only for the reason that a tremendous opinion in favour of federal aid to education in this country has been built up among large and important organizations, organizations of farmers, labour, educational authorities, school trustees, and the like, together with the cooperatives who have expressed their favour; but what is more important, more and more the great masses of public opinion in this country are becoming more and more vocal and demanding.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I should like to take just a few minutes to say something along the line that has been taken by the hon. member for Saskatoon. I believe this topic is very timely. I think it ought to be brought to the attention of the Prime Minister that there is a growing feeling throughout the country that he is addicted to the habit of saying no for the purpose of seeing what happens, but that habit certainly is not conducive to national unity, particularly when the people of this country have, for a good many years, looked forward to the time when federal aid to education would be a reality, and on a much broader scale than at the present time.
Let me say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that we are quite aware of the good things the federal government has already done in the educational field. We are quite aware of the fine things that are done and have been done for some time, particularly in the field of technical education. That sort of thing we deeply appreciate, but it only goes a very short way. It is not the sort of thing the
The Address-Mr. Low people of Canada from one coast to the other have expected eventually would be brought about in this Dominion of Canada. We are aware also, Mr. Speaker, of the good things that the federal government has done by way of assistance to the universities of this country. We appreciate that. But that again is not enough, and it is confined to all too few of our boys and girls, all too few of our people. When one realizes that not more than 8 or 10 per cent of those who graduate from the high schools ever have a chance to graduate from a university, one can realize that the assistance which has been extended to universities can touch the lives of only a very, very few of the Canadian people. So we express keen disappointment that the Prime Minister acted the other day in such a peremptory manner in answering the question put to him with regard to the intention of the government in the future in helping the provinces in the general field of education.
What we would like to see is much more consideration given these things by more people on the other side before answers are given that tend to close the doors. I quite agree with the hon. member for Saskatoon that the Prime Minister was certainly peremptory and showed on that occasion an inclination to be pretty dictatorial. What has been done by the federal government to date in the field of aid to education in no way assists the provinces to equalize educational opportunity; and if there is one thing more than another that I think we, the members of this house, pretty generally stand for it is equality of opportunity in education for all our boys and girls throughout this whole country.
It is well known that certain provinces cannot advance the standard of education to these young people comparable with what other provinces can extend. There are certain provinces that just have not the wherewithal. How in the world are they going to equalize educational opportunities in those provinces that have smaller incomes, that have not the resources to draw upon? There is only one way, and that is for educational assistance to be granted by this federal government.


Mr. Pouliot:: Will my hon. friend permit me a question?


Solon Earl Low: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: What does he mean by the standard of education?


Solon Earl Low: I did not say "standard"; I said "opportunities".


Jean-François Pouliot: No, you said "standard".
Hansard must have taken it.
1422	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. how


Solon Earl Low: I shall repeat what I did say. There are certain provinces in our country that have not wealth enough, have not resources sufficient to advance educational opportunities to their boys and girls such as you find in other provinces. That I think goes without saying. One does not need to argue on this floor, certainly, the merits of that contention. I believe everybody who is familiar with education understands that to be true. I do not need to mention names. All one has to do is take the reports from the various departments of education and discover the amount of money that is being provided, the quality of the equipment, the training of the teachers and that sort of thing to come to a full understanding of the problem as I have expressed it. I do not intend to enter into that argument today; it has already been established right here in this house on numerous occasions.
That being the case, Mr. Speaker, what I want to get at is this. How in the world can these less fortunate provinces ever look forward to equality of educational opportunity with the more fortunate provinces if this federal government is not prepared to do something about it, to make available assistance to general education and not just confine itself to the field of technical or university education? It must get down to lower levels than that. We have constantly advocated that the federal government be prepared to make available grants out of the broad, substantial taxation they take out of the people in the provinces, and that these grants shall be unconditional, at least so far as specifying the particular things on which they shall be spent. We would expect, of course, that grants to education from the federal government to the provinces would carry with them some regulation as to how they should be spent, but it should be broad. We have already expressed that on numerous occasions. But to close the door now to any hope of that sort of thing in the future, by a peremptory answer such as that given by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the other day, it seems to me is unjust and will certainly dampen the hopes of a great many people across this country.
I think the Prime Minister will live to rue the day he took that stand. I think the Canadian people are going to remember and, so far as I am concerned, I will help them to keep their memories fresh in the matter. I do not think it was right, I do not think it was just, I do not think it was deserved; and I do not think it reflects, either, the feeling of the majority of people in this House of Commons. So I join with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) in

deploring the closing of the door, as it were, to any further appeal by the Canadian people for federal aid to education. I would not like to enter upon any long argument today as to why there should be that federal aid, because the subject matter is not federal aid to education; the subject of the discussion is the Prime Minister's action in closing the door the other day.	[DOT]
There is only one thing; we may have misunderstood him. I hope we did. I hope the Prime Minister did not mean to close the door so abruptly, so completely, so tightly. I hope he will be able now to tell us that we took the wrong meaning. If we did, then I shall take back all I have said this afternoon. If we did not, then I am just saying now that I will have a lot further to say about it in the house and outside the house until such time as a better answer is given to the Canadian people.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I will not let any member of the C.C.F. party or the leader of the Social Credit group lecture the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent), who is my leader.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Try to stop them, if they want to. It is a free country.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes*, it is a free country; but if it is free for the hon. member who has spoken it must be free for me too. My hon. friends show so little respect for their leaders that it must be a surprise when I, as a member of the Liberal party, take the defence of my chief against such ridiculous attacks as those which have come from the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low).


Solon Earl Low: There were some speeches of yours in 1947-


Jean-François Pouliot: It was not the same leader. I was suffering from tyranny at the time.


Solon Earl Low: There was another one sitting in the Prime Minister's seat.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell my hon. friend to keep quiet. I did not interrupt him, and I have something to tell him. I have still a few moments to speak, and I want him to listen to me. I regret having to put him to shame.


Solon Earl Low: That is fine.


Mr. Knowles:: Where is the peacemaker?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not a peacemaker with my colleagues. But this time I want to bring those two hon. gentlemen to a sense of proportion. In the first place I will remind the leader of the Social Credit group that at one time he was a member of the provincial government of Alberta.


Solon Earl Low: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: He agrees. Why was he a member of that government? It was in virtue of the constitution of this country. [DOT]


Solon Earl Low: Right.


Jean-François Pouliot: He still agrees with me. But let me go on with my argument. If there had been such a mix-up with regard to education, and with regard to jurisdiction and power, as the hon. members who have just spoken have described, there would have been no provinces and the leader of the Social Credit group would not now have the glory of having been a former supporter of Mr. Aberhart, in his cabinet. There would have been no provinces.
I have a few things to tell those gentlemen, through you, sir. I shall try to make it as brief as possible. In the first place my hon. friends are under the belief that it is easier to say yes than to say no, when requests are made.


Solon Earl Low: No, we are not.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is true that it is easier to say yes than to say no.


Solon Earl Low: No, it becomes easier to say no, just like Vishinsky does.


Jean-François Pouliot: No.


Solon Earl Low: Oh, yes. He says no to everything, now.


Jean-François Pouliot: There are some members of parliament who say yes, yes, yes, every time they are asked for something. When it is no that comes afterward, they are greatly disappointed. It takes courage to refuse a request. And it is not because requests are declined or turned down that one must call the one who refuses them a tyrant, a dictator or the like. My hon friend knows that very well.
There are reasons for that. The main reason is that in virtue of the constitution under which we serve as members of parliament, education is a matter exclusively of provincial jurisdiction.


Solon Earl Low: We agree with that-"jurisdiction"-surely.


Jean-François Pouliot: Inasmuch as the hon. member agrees with it, he must agree also with the Prime Minister who gave a constitutional answer to the provinces who try to tear down the constitution so as to have the provinces of Quebec and Ontario pay for all their expenses.
Now, my hon. friend should be prouder than that. We are always hearing about the revenues from oil in Alberta, that that
The Address-Mr. Pouliot province is rich and is about to clear its debts. We hear it said that that province has big revenue, when compared with the revenue of Quebec and Ontario. And I am sure that those who make the comparison will not take long to see that Quebec, and even Ontario, have done wonderfully well for their schools, without the assistance of the dominion government.
My hon. friend must remember that at the time of the Rowell commission Mr. Dafoe, who was a self-taught man and one of the big bugs of the university of Manitoba, induced the university to submit a memorandum to Judge Rowell asking that educational grants be given by Ottawa to the provinces. My hon. friend must remember that. Yes, he does. My memory is good enough to discuss these matters now. Dafoe was a journalist who acquired some fame in the newspaper world. He was a self-taught man, and my hon. friend knows that. And he knows something more: he knows that the pillars of universities are, most of the time, men who are well off, well to do, and who have no university background. My hon. friend knows that, too. They are the men who are under the impression that university education will improve the condition of future generations.
This is a matter for argument. It is a matter concerning which there could be considerable dissent. And, judging by the world today, we do not know if it is so good for the youth to follow a university course. I will remind the hon. gentlemen who have spoken of what was said by Dr. Sidney Smith, the president of no less a university than the university of Toronto. He said two or three years ago that there were too many boys, too many students following the courses of universities. The reason is quite obvious. There are many people who derive no benefit from the years they have spent at college or university. I know of people who would be much happier, and perhaps the world would be better off, if they had never learned to read or write.


Solon Earl Low: Even the Prime Minister laughs at that.


Major James William Coldwell: Did not President Smith point out that there were too many young people who were unable to benefit from university education because they had not the economic resources, that the wrong people were getting it in some instances?


Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps, but my hon. friend knows that no proportion of that kind has ever been established. Occasionally we meet people who are not educated and we are apt to say, "It is unfortunate that he did not have

The Address-Mr. Pouliot the benefit of education; he would do marvellous things if he had gone through university". The fact is that quite often those same people would have been failures if they had gone through university.
A proper aim in life is not to fill your memory with facts and figures or with so-called general knowledge contained in encyclopedias which are put out, often for young people. The proper aim in life is education in the proper sense.


Solon Earl Low: Living.


Jean-François Pouliot: The formation of the mind and character, the will to do perhaps unpleasant jobs at the start in order to know what is right and then to ascend to the summit by degrees. Many young people go to college or university in order to become superior people. When they are finished with the social sciences, economics or the like they are ready for old age pensions in their twenties. They are fed up with school, they are fed up with everything, and yet they feel they are ready to rule the world.
What is lacking? It is the formation of character, the readiness to start humbly as their fathers started and not to expect to be in the position their fathers are when they leave school. I know boys whose fathers earn $4,000, $5,000, $6,000 or perhaps more, and when they come out of college they expect to earn the same amount. They have been through college or university and their heads have become swelled. They are filled with ambition. Ambition to serve their country? No, sir; ambition to get more money.


Solon Earl Low: Where would the hon. member for Temiscouata be if he had not gone to university?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will surprise my hon. friend by telling him that I began to learn things as soon as I got out of it. Thirty odd years ago I refused an honorary degree of doctor of laws because I did not think I should have it. I was not even a bachelor of laws. I had passed my examination to enter the bar of my province, but the only university degree I have is bachelor of laws.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The hon. member will not get any after this speech.


Jean-François Pouliot: We have great seats of learning in this country and in many respects they do a useful job, but many students come out of our universities nothing less than failures in life. On the other hand, there are boys who took commercial courses who are now paying the taxes to support these schools. The leader of the Social Credit group has many farmers in his constituency and I think he will admit that very few of them have

university degrees. Without knowing them I feel safe in saying that they are similar to the farmers in my constituency. They will be self-taught men who observe what is going on, who love nature, who live a healthy outdoors life.


Solon Earl Low: They have a good public and high school education.


Jean-François Pouliot: But not a university education.


Solon Earl Low: That is not what I was talking about; 1 was talking about public and high school education, general education.


Major James William Coldwell: I think general education was the subject.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is even worse. I do not think my hon. friend should complain about the decision reached by the government.


Solon Earl Low: By the government?


Jean-François Pouliot: That is according to the press and I know nothing more about it. Grants are to be made to the universities through the provincial governments. If those grants are necessary, which is a matter of opinion, they will be made to the provinces which have exclusive jurisdiction over education. The Prime Minister's competence as a lawyer is recognized and he respects the constitution. He is doing the best he can to help education under the constitution.


Solon Earl Low: That is what I want.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let me say to my hon. friend that if he held the responsible position of Prime Minister of Canada and the provinces asked for grants to the universities, he would make no different answer than that made by the Prime Minister; and if the Prime Minister had been in the position of the hon. gentleman he would not have criticized him.


Solon Earl Low: The hon. member is quite wrong there.
Mr. J. W. Nose worthy (York South): Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) on education, and particularly on the subject of federal aid for education. I think I am only fair in saying that the arguments he used were not arguments against federal aid for education. He questioned the value of education itself. It was not just a question of which government supports education. It became quite evident from the hon. member's remarks that he is questioning the value of education to society and to individuals. It is rather amazing to find one who has benefited from education, who has acquired all the culture that education and educational institutions offer, who portrays in his daily life all the virtues of an educated man-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand up and bow.


Joseph William Noseworthy: -frowning upon the value of education to his fellow citizens. He tells us, for instance, that a great many people would be happier if they had never learned to read or write. I do not know that happiness in itself is a measure of the value of education to society. Happiness must be relative. I would not be at all surprised if the imbecile, who has no power of observation and no sense of responsibility, may be happier than some of us. I do not think happiness is the measuring rod by which we should judge the value of education. I do not think the hon. member for Temiscou-ata would want to carry his argument so far as to say that society and the world itself would be better oft if no one had ever learned to read or write. I am quite confident that the hon. member realizes the benefits which we in this generation receive by virtue of the fact that our ancestors were able to read and write and were able to leave us their thoughts on the written page. The hon. member would not be nearly so charming as an individual if he had not imbibed the culture of the past.


Solon Earl Low: Temiscouata would not have had such a colourful member.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am not going to enter into an argument with him about what is and what is not education. Certainly every educationist today will agree with him that education is something more than merely storing the memory with facts. That is not what we mean by education. To say that the federal government should not assist the provinces and the municipalities in supporting education is, I think, in this day and generation on a par with the belief held one hundred years ago that it was the responsibility of the parent to finance his children's education. We have moved forward since then. We no longer think it is the sole responsibility of the parent even if the hon. member for Temiscouata believes that the youth of today should begin where his parents began. Actually of course he does. Actually the child of today begins where his parents began. Children are born with no more knowledge than their mothers or fathers had at time of birth. They are still born unable to speak and walk. The babies of today start where their fathers and mothers began, so I have no quarrel with the hon. member on that point. But we have moved forward during the past century. We no longer think that the parent should assume the sole financial responsibility for the education of his offspring. We no longer think
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy even that the municipality should assume full financial responsibility. We have reached the point where every province in this country shares with its municipalities part of that responsibility. We have gone further. We have reached the stage where the federal government shares to a considerable degree the responsibility for providing education in one form and another with the provinces and the municipalities.
During a previous speech I put before the house the amount of money the various departments of the federal government spend directly and indirectly on education. Whether or not the hon. member for Temiscouata likes it, the federal government is in the business of education, is paying large sums of money each year for education, and we are now about to embark upon a new venture, direct grants to the universities. I am sure we appreciate that. I was very disappointed and not a little surprised to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) categorically deny any intention of giving federal support to education. I hope that the Prime Minister-


George James McIlraith: The Prime Minister was replying to a specific question asked by a member.


Joseph William Noseworthy: -was referring solely to the particular question directed to him at that time. I think probably we have reason to believe the Prime Minister meant that in so far as that specific request was concerned it was not being considered, and he was advising his colleagues not to give consideration to it. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister, as cultured and as appreciative of culture and the values of education as he is, meant anything else. Notwithstanding all that the hon. member for Temiscouata said about education, I am sure both he and the Prime Minister appreciate and set a very high value on the merits of education.
I recall that in the first session of 1949 the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) gave us reason to believe that his government was interested in federal aid for education. I can see no reason why he should have changed his opinion with regard to the general subject of federal aid to education since that day. If he has changed his opinion, or if his statement yesterday applied to federal support for education in general and not to the specific question that was raised, then I think we are entitled to an explanation. We are entitled to know just why he has changed his attitude to this subject. Is it because he fears that the federal government will be assuming too much financial responsibility if it embarks further on the matter of federal aid to education? Or is he concerned chiefly

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy with the constitutional question, or with the fact that the provinces, by our constitution, are responsible for education?
I cannot think that the latter is a sound reason for any great change in the Prime Minister's opinion. There is no reason in the world to think that, by granting aid to the secondary schools or the public schools of any province in this country, the federal government should seek to interfere with the curriculum or the methods of teaching, any more than the federal government will interfere with the curriculum and the methods of teaching in the universities to which the federal government is making a direct contribution. There is no reason why what is true in one case should not also be true in the other.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Joseph William Noseworthy: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Besides being a delightful
man, I should like to know if his profession is that of teacher.

Mr. Nose worthy: I was for more than twenty years, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.
On motion of Mr. Noseworthy the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue consideration of the railway legislation: Bill No. 12, to amend the Railway Act; Bill No. 6, to amend the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, 1933; Bill No. 7, to amend the Maritime Freight Rates Act; then Bill No. 8, to amend the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act; the resolution in the name of the Minister of Justice concerning the increase in the number of county court judges in British Columbia; Bill No. 28, to amend the Canada-United States of America Tax Convention Act, 1943, and the Canada-United States of America Tax Convention Act, 1944.
At 6.15 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.

Thursday, November 29, 1951